As many of you know, my wife and I are expecting our fourth child (see Kristi’s belly here). In light of this, I have, understandably I think, been thinking some about what the Bible says about children. Some of these appeared in a post challenging us on whether or not we believe it when the Bible says that children are a blessing (read that post here).
Since that post I’ve been, perhaps, a bit more sensitive to this contrast between what the Bible says about children and our actual attitude towards them. It shouldn’t take much convincing to say that the world we live in does not value children. If you do need convincing, consider the recent proposal out of Australia to put a carbon tax on children.
For those who might not be familiar with the idea of “carbon” taxes, credits, footprints and the rest, the idea is simply that everything we do has impact on the earth. This impact is often measured in what are known as “carbon footprints,” which Wikipediadefines as the:
measure of the impact human activities have on the environment in terms of the amount of green house gases produced, measured in units of carbon dioxide.
To help offset these “footprints,” an elaborate system of emissions trading has been developed in which you can buy “carbon credits.” The idea is that certain people are allocated certain levels of allotted levels of pollution. If you have “left-over” pollution rights, you can trade and/or sell them to who need more. That’s a gross over-simplification, but let’s be honest, pollution is really what we’re talking about.
A new proposal in the Medical Journal of Australia is now proposing imposing a carbon tax on every child born in the country. Currently, Australia is battling a decreasing birth-rate by offering a bonus of nearly $5,000 to have children. Yet, many are arguing that this policy is actually harmful to the environment and instead of a financial bonus, these people want to tax families for the impact to the environment the children will undoubtedly have. The report, penned by Barry Walters, “an associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia” says that:
every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children should be charged a carbon tax. He goes on to argue that those purchasing condoms or undergoing sterilisation procedures should be awarded carbon credits.
In other words, when we cut to the core of what’s really being said here by this and other Australian doctors, we find that the environment is more important than children. This shouldn’t surprise us, the very notion of abortion is that children are less important than any number of sundry issues: finances, comfort, image, convenience. These Australians have simply added another item to the list of what is more important to us than children and in their case, it happens to be “the environment.”
As Christians, we must be prepared as such thinking becomes more vocal and more accepted. We must be ready with a caring, compassionate but bold and thoughtful response. And yet what might we say to such things, after all, the environment is surely important, is it not? Yes, it is, and regardless of your position on “global warming,” Christians should be at the forefront of environmental efforts.
The Environment Was Made For Man
We should care for the environment because the environment was made for us. This is the clear message of the Creation Accounts in Genesis 1 and 2. God lovingly and carefully created the Garden as a home for the first man and woman and then charged Adam with the task of “tending” to the Garden, that is, taking care of it. The Environment was made for man, to be our habitation. We, in our first parents, were given the charge to rule over this creation as God’s stewards, to care for it, to protect it. Yes, we have often failed miserably, but that does not provide the justification to somehow now pretend that the environment itself is more important than us.
The Environment Reminds us of God
There is also another aspect that should drive Christians to care for the environment. Not just was it made for us, but it reminds us of God at every turn. Psalm 19:1 reminds that “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” Paul, in Romans 1 argues that because of creation itself, no one has any excuse to say that there is no God. God continues to care for us, sending rain on the “just and the unjust” (Matthew 5:45) and its beauty and complexity remind us of God at every turn.
We Cannot Reverse Our Priorities
While the creation was made for us and reminds us of God, though we have been charged with the care and protection of it, we cannot elevate it to a place it does not deserve in God’s scheme. This is exactly what these Australian doctors are doing, lowering the value of children while elevating that of the environment. They are guilty of, what Paul describes as exchanging the “creation for the Creator” (Romans 1:25).
We Christians must be more vocal and forceful about joining in the pursuit of protecting the environment, precisely because it is God’s gift to us and it reminds us of Him. We ought to be wary of siding with political interests that forsake the environment, we should actively seek opportunities to take care of the earth, but we must also remember that it is ours because God gave it to us.
God established an order into the very creation itself and what we find in so many environmental proposals like this one is an effort to overthrow the very order of creation, as though the environment were more important than those it was made for. May be be more thoughtful, more active and more bold as these priorities are continually skewed by those who would worship the creation rather than the Creator.
There is, perhaps, no more controversial concept in Christendom than church discipline. Well, that is perhaps, next to eschatology. Or maybe Calvinism. But church discipline is up there regardless. The Wall Street Journal recently featured an interesting article about the resurgence of church discipline, which they called an “ancient practice.”
And of course, they chose to highlight an episode which makes the entire process appear to be little more than a judgmental spirit and local church politics gone awry. They showcased: “71-year-old Karolyn Caskey, a church member for nearly 50 years who had taught Sunday school and regularly donated 10% of her pension.” One Sunday morning, Mrs. Caskey found herself escorted out of Allen Baptist Church in southwestern Michigan by a state trooper and a county sheriff’s officer while “One held her purse and Bible. The other put her in handcuffs” (here the 911 call). As the article notes:
The charge was trespassing, but Mrs. Caskey’s real offense, in her pastor’s view, was spiritual. Several months earlier, when she had questioned his authority, he’d charged her with spreading “a spirit of cancer and discord” and expelled her from the congregation. “I’ve been shunned,” she says.
The article goes on to say:
Her story reflects a growing movement among some conservative Protestant pastors to bring back church discipline, an ancient practice in which suspected sinners are privately confronted and then publicly castigated and excommunicated if they refuse to repent. While many Christians find such practices outdated, pastors in large and small churches across the country are expelling members for offenses ranging from adultery and theft to gossiping, skipping service and criticizing church leaders.
The practice of church discipline is difficult any way you look at it and we must beware that when situations such as Mrs. Caskey’s arise, they will become the poster children for how mean-spirited and judgmental those “hypocritical Christians” can be, “pretending they don’t have any sin while judging everyone else.” I fully admit that I do not know Mrs. Kaskey, nor the pastor of Allen Baptist Church, Jason Burrick, but I feel fairly safe in suggesting that there was a better way to handle that situation.
The reality is that is that church discipline, though the focus of this article, is not common and rarely understood. And yet, J.L. Dagg, in his Manual of Church order (read it here) said: “When discipline leaves a church, Christ goes with it.” I wonder how many of us would share this sentiment? In thinking through these complicated issues, there are at least a couple of things to consider.
Church Discipline is Biblical
The place to start is the Bible. The idea of church discipline is not man’s idea but God’s. The obvious place to begin is with God’s zeal for holiness. Leviticus 11:44a says: “For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy.” The church is the people of God and the Bible reminds us that we will be known by our purity and integrity. 1 Peter 2:9-12:
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation
God’s passion for holiness is to be transferred to and mimicked by His people. In light of this, Paul in 1 Corinthians 5 compares sin to leaven, warning that “a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?” In light of this, he admonishes the Corinthians church to “Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened (1 Corinthians 5:7).” Paul tells the Corinthian church to “clean out the old leaven,” meaning that they were to put the unrepentant sinner out from among them.
The Attitude Should Not Be Judgmental and The Goal is Restoration, Not Shunning
Paul was building on previous instructions from Jesus Himself. This is crucial because when many hear of church discipline, they indeed think of nothing but harsh judgmental spirits. But Jesus gave us the pattern and intent of church discipline in Matthew 18:15-17:
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Notice that Jesus says, that the goal of the one on one meeting is the restoration of the person in question. This establishes the heart of the entire process. The goal is never excommunication, but that is a possibility. The heart is one of brokenness and the key is that the issue under examination is one of unrepentant sin.
We all sin, that’s not the issue. Church discipline is not the pretension that “you have this sin while I have none.” But, when confronted by a brother or sister about our sin, the ideal is that we recognize it as sin and we repent. Notice, the person in Jesus’ scenario and Paul’s admonition, has willfully chosen to continue in their sin, even after being confronted. The issue, as we’ve seen, is holiness and the goal is restoration.
I once heard it said that church discipline is only properly administered with tears. This is something that most miss, as testified to by the Wall Street Journal piece. We have done a poor job communicating the intent, heart, instructions or purpose of church discipline, escorting old women out in handcuffs does little to clarify matters.
In the church’s quest for purity, we are left walking the tightrope balance of not tolerating sin (first in ourselves and then in others) with compassion and a humble boldness. When we show the world handcuffed elderly women, should we be surprised that they see this process as harsh, vindictive and judgmental? We should not expect them to understand when it is practiced appropriately! How much more the case in situations like this.
Much of this signals the fact that we are living in a time that many within the church are once again, openly and quite imperfectly, wrestling with the question of what it means to be the Church in a fallen age. But as we do so, we must remember that the world is watching. As is our Lord.
It’s likely that many of our mothers used a similar proverb to try and tame our tongues: “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.” While a bit on the pragmatic side, it’s not a bad sentiment (even though, growing up, I would sometimes use my silence to speak in place of my words!). It seems to draw on several Scriptural sentiments while at the same time not taking them quite far enough. The Bible certainly has much to say about our words. For example, see James 3 in which James examines the destructive power of such a small member of the Body.
Yet, biblically, it doesn’t seem to be enough just to not speak evil of someone. In fact, Paul challenges us in Ephesians 4:29 to
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.
It seems interesting to me that one of the areas in which we often forget this and similar admonitions is that of theological disagreement. Though we may not resort to Luther’s tendency of outright name-calling, we often leave charity at the door when it comes to theological disagreements. And, it seems, the “more important” the disagreement, the louder our voices become (or the more ALL CAPS sections appear if we happen to be typing). And yet, it’s Augustine who is credited with coining a phrase that ought to guide many of our theological pursuits: Unity in what is essential, Liberty in what is non-essential and in all things charity.
Don’t get me wrong. If you know me or if you’ve read here even for a short time, I hope that you know my dedication to theological precision and Biblical fidelity. I am passionate about the Truth of God and have dedicated my life to its study, presentation and application. Though by some standards I’m not an old man (it seems to depend on who you ask!), I’ve been a Christian long enough to be on both ends of some less than charitable doctrinal discussions, which now breaks my heart and I’d wish I had understood more of charity in many of those discussions.
I’ve also come to realize that a lack of charity is sometimes more subtle than an angry tone or outright name-calling. Theological study is often quite difficult. It requires the ability, not just to see “big-picture” ideas and how they relate to one another, it also necessitates attention to detail and the desire to wade through that muck many call “nuance,” grasping shades of detail and how those different shades color the “big picture” differently. And it also demands the willingness to understand the positions with which you differ. It’s generally a good rule that if you can’t explain an opposing viewpoint in such a way that someone who holds that position could say “Why, yes, you’ve said that well,” then you’re not fully prepared to present an opposing viewpoint. In most theological discussion, it would seem that we’re brothers and sisters in the faith, the least we could do is love one another enough to present the other’s position accurately.
And yet, this small modicum of Christian charity is far too often missing in theological discussion. I am the first to admit that I am often quite guilty, so I don’t pretend to point the finger with clean hands. But it’s out of guilt that I can also plead with my brothers and sisters not to make the same mistakes, which leads me to the issue at hand.
Some of you have read the recent Baptist Press article regarding “Calvinism” and Evangelism entitled “Evangelists Lament Calvinism, SBC Trends.” According to the piece, “A group of 15 evangelists meeting in Jackson, Tenn., Jan. 7-8 said they have concerns about the growth of Calvinism and the rise of a Willow Creek-style of non-confrontational evangelism within Southern Baptist churches.” I don’t think the meeting meant to equate Calvinism with “Willow Creek-style” evangelism, but I’m also not quite sure what the two had in common to the be major themes of this meeting. Regardless, the piece goes on to note that the meeting was initiated by Jerry Drace, “an evangelist from Humboldt, Tennessee: and that:
Drace told the group he currently is working with some young pastors who are “so leaning in this morphed Calvinism that they almost laugh at evangelism. It’s almost to the extent that they believe they don’t have to do it. So [Calvinism] gives them an excuse not to do evangelism.”
I do not know Jerry Drace, nor have I ever heard his name prior to reading this piece. But, what I take from these comments is that Drace is promoting the old rebuke that Calvinists don’t evangelize because they (we) believe that God has predestined those who will be saved, so why should I present the Gospel if God’s going to save who He’s going to save regardless (Mr. Drace, if I have misrepresented your concerns, please let me know and accept my apologies). Yet it’s interesting that, intentionally or not, the author of the piece, Michael Chute, Professor of Journalism at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee has already exposed the folly of Drace’s argument in the same piece.
Earlier in the piece, before he quotes Drace regarding evangelism, Chute references recent research conducted by LifeWay. The study, released in November, found that “10 percent of Southern Baptist pastors identified themselves as Calvinists. However, 29 percent of recent SBC seminary graduates espoused Calvinist doctrine.” Chute then expounds on some of the report’s other findings:
The study concluded that a minority of SBC churches are led by Calvinist-leaning pastors, but that number is increasing. Also, Calvinist-led churches are generally smaller in worship attendance and baptisms than non-Calvinist churches. However, the study said the baptism rates between Calvinist and non-Calvinist led churches are virtually identical. Additionally, the study found that Calvinistic recent graduates report that they conduct personal evangelism at a slightly higher rate than their non-Calvinistic peers.
In case you missed it, let me repeat the last line for you: Calvinistic recent graduates report that they conduct personal evangelism at a slightly higher rate than their non-Calvinistic peers. So, what LifeWay found actually contradicts what Southern Baptists at nearly every level are saying. Jerry Drace says that Calvinists use their theology as an excuse “not to do evangelism” while Christianity Today, in a recent piece called “TULIP Blooming,” references Frank Page, saying that he “worries that extremists could undermine the SBC’s emphasis on outreach.”
Just as I do not know Drace, I do not know, nor have I ever met Frank Page. But I do know that these sentiments are not new nor rare in the Southern Baptist Convention. This is all the more true with the new that Al Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, will be nominated as President of the Southern Baptist Convention itself. Calvinism has found itself as the center-piece of controversy in the nation’s largest Protestant denomination.
Yet, I would argue that it’s not Calvinism per se that is the controversy, but the misunderstanding of doctrine by Calvinism’s opponents, as demonstrated by the denomination’s research unit itself. While LifeWay is saying that recent seminary graduates who identify themselves as Calvinistic (that’s another can of worms of what exactly that means, but it’s not a can to be opened today) actually engage in personal evangelism at a “slightly higher rate than their non-Calvinistic peers,” many Southern Baptist leaders are saying that Calvinists don’t evangelize.
You can biblically disagree with the theological understanding known as Calvinism. That’s fine, but in the name of charity, I would beg these Southern Baptist leaders to stay clear of mis-representation. Let’s just publicly say we disagree and say why, but let’s at least be fair to one another’s positions. The charge that Calvinists don’t evangelize is not true to history or current experience. Nor is it consistent with the theology of mainstream Calvinism in any of its presentations.
It’s interesting that Drace attacks “morphed Calvinism” and Page worries about “extremists.” Yet neither define (at least in this context) what they mean by those terms. Yes, there has historically been an approach known as Hyper-Calvinism which has, in practice, not evangelized (see some of the historical debates over missions and even some Primitive Baptist churches today for examples). However, this has been condemned by the larger Reformed community and is not the belief nor practice of most “Calvinists.” Yet, the two, Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism are more than not equated in attacks like the ones we see here. This is neither intellectually honest nor loving.
Imagine the uproar that would swell if I accused my Arminian brothers of Open Theism, saying that it was the logical end of the teaching that salvation is up to the individual? If it’s up to the individual, then God is not in control over that situation and if He’s not in control of that situation, then maybe He doesn’t know the future, because it hasn’t been decided and maybe Open Theism isn’t so far off after all (Just for the record, I am not accusing Arminians as most understand and practice the theology of being Open Theists). Such arguments would not be tolerated, nor should they be. Yet, this seems to be exactly what is happening when many leaders condemn all Calvinists as Hyper-Calvinists.
In the name of charity, for the pursuit of “building up” and giving grace to those who hear,” I must again beg these and other Southern Baptists to please be fair. I am deeply troubled by these recent trends and it is through the lens of my own mistakes that I can beg my brothers and sisters to remember charity, even for the Calvinists.
Read the Baptist Press piece “Evangelists Lament Calvinism, SBC Trends”
The Knights of the New Crusade seem to be controversial to just about everyone. And that just might be the point. A garage punk band based out of San Francisco, The Knights of the New Crusade are equal opportunity offenders. The band’s 2006 release, A Challenge to the Cowards of Christendom features lyrics like: “Why do you want to go to hell?” and “when I see her around town, she’s doing things to make the devil proud.” Their message is clear: “Jesus is the only way and without Him, you’ll perish.” Needless to say, non-believers might not come running back for more.
Yet the band is equally as set on many Christians, chastising many other “Christian” bands for hiding Jesus under a bushel, record labels for chasing profits (singing “You don’t post record earnings by telling people to give their wealth to the poor”) and politicians for inconsistency, asking in one song “What part of Thou Shalt Not Kill Don’t You Understand,” saying “some of the people that get on our case for being Knights are under the influence of the same war-mongering demons as the politicians who ignore the commandments that Jesus affirmed.”
Yet, this over-the-top band has many wondering if the whole thing isn’t just a gimmick. For one thing, the band wears crusader uniforms to perform. The album artwork seems to be a parody of the famous Chick tracts. But, perhaps more to the point, the band is signed to the famous (or is that infamous) Alternative Tentacles label, owned by famed non-believer Jello Biafra, formerly of The Dead Kennedys. The label itself says:
we here at AT debated the wisdom of signing such an outspokenly fundamentalist religous band to the historically spiritually skeptical label owned by Jello Biafra. Other AT artists have strong spiritual beliefs, but none approach the stridency or literalism of the Knights’ beliefs. However, the Knights of the New Crusade’s stated objective is to take Christianity back from the powerful hypocrites who have hijacked it and to make Christian rock that actually rocks. Besides, Alternative Tentacles thrives on controversy, especially when it is as double-edged as the swords the band wields on stage.
In a 2006 podcast, one label executive complains a bit about the band’s forward approach to their faith, but then commends them for attacking some of the same people the label has been known for attacking. Both the band and the label play it remarkably straight-faced, leaving the rest of us to wonder. If the band is a gimmick, they seem to be pushing all the right buttons.
And yet, gimmick or not, the band has clearly hit some sensitive nerves for a lot of people. They play primarily “secular” venues without watering down the message of Christ while calling many other aspects of commercial Christianity to task. The band’s very existence challenges nearly every notion of what is and what is not “Christian” music, leaving many people simply scratching their heads in their wake.
The band forces us to consider whether it is possible to be more outspoken about our faith in all contexts rather than just preaching the gospel at churches or “youth rallies.” Yet, at the same time, they also challenge the way in which we often don’t stop to actually think about what it is that we preach. We are all guilty of gross inconsistencies in our approach to Christianity, often justifying in Jesus’ name actions He would have clearly condemned. Nowhere is this perhaps more apparent than the “Christian entertainment” industry, for which the band has little sympathy.
Some people are offended by this band. Some people think they’re nothing more than a gimmick. But, if anything, they force us to think, and for that reason alone they ought to be taken seriously.
Another week gone by and what do you have to show for it? I have some links. Would you like to see my links? They’re shiny links and they sparkle in the sunlight. Well, that really depends on if your computer monitor is facing the sun, doesn’t it? Welcome to the Weekly Town Crier, where I pass along some of what made me pause and say “hmmmmm,” for one reason or another. Remember, linking is not the same as endorsing. Enjoy:
Sign up for eMusic, find lots of DRM-free downloads and help me earn free downloads in the process. Everyone wins!
Browse these statistics of the world: “of the 6,691,484,000 people in the world in 2008, in the broad-brush-painted sense, 2,231,421,000 are Christian; 1,412, 301,000 are Muslim; 887,991,000 are Hindu; Buddhists number 391,122,000; and Jews list 15,044,000. Every twenty-four hours the world has a population net growth of 219,000 people. Christians number 170,000 converts per day but find 91,000 defectors, so the net growth is 79,000 Christians each day. Of the 2,113,199,000 “affiliated” Christians, 1,476,690,000 are “church attenders.”
Read about increased American interest in “spiritual” matters.
Read about Britain’s Prime Minister “overhauling the country’s organ donation system to make it easier for doctors to remove body parts from deceased patients without prior consent.”
Watch this piece which says antidepressants may not actually work.
Watch this video of people, ages 1-100 banging on a drum.
Congratulations to Colossians Three Sixteen favorite Doug Burr, who was recently named one of “Four to Watch” by Paste Magazine and found himself a spot on their February sampler CD. Read my interview with Doug here and my review of the wonderful On Promenadehere.
Read about the WI pastor challenging the “Internal Revenue Service by writing an open letter that criticizes rules against ministers getting too political in their pulpits.”
Read this article which wonders if the rift between Evangelicals over Romney and Huckabee might just books McCain.
Read about the California company that has “created the first mature cloned human embryos from single skin cells taken from adults.”
Read about the resentment many Sikhs have towards “profiling” at airports.
Read presidential candidates becoming increasingly vocal about their faith.
Read this piece which wonders just what Huckabee means when he proposes “that the US constitution be brought more in line with God’s law in the Bible.”
Read about French President’s “increasingly frequent and positive references to God and faith” that “have drawn fire from critics who accuse him of violating France’s separation of church and state.”
Read about the “one word change” to the newest edition of the Book of Mormon that has caused some controversy.
Read about Chuck Norris saying that John McCain “is too old to handle the pressures of being president.”
Read about Oliver Stone’s plans to make a “fair” biopic on George W. Bush.
Read about the man who “survived 96 hours pinned under his all-terrain vehicle in the Rocky Mountains by eating rotting animal carcasses, drinking melted snow and thinking of his grandchildren.”
Read about live music now being performed in the Nashville airport.
Read about the print version of CCM Magazine coming to an end.
Browse as the 2008 Coachella music festival has announced its lineup.
Read this Christianity Today piece which notes that: “Although only 10 percent of SBC pastors identify themselves as Calvinists, nearly 30 percent of recent seminary graduates do.”
Read as John Ensor at Desiring God urges us to pray for the “third wave” of the Pro-Life movement.
Read as Doug considers the “Big Gap” between instruction and application.
Read about Starbucks’ new $1.00 cup of coffee with free refills!
Read this piece examining the increasing gulf between the “middle class” and the ever-increasingly “super rich.”
R.I.P. noted Southern Baptist scholar, L. Rush Bush.
Read about Jimmy Carter calling for “Baptist Unity.”
Read about Koreans protesting churches being used as polling places.
Read about the Catholic church openly challenging Communist officials in Vietnam over land issues.
Read about the recent shift among many Hispanic Evangelicals to the Democratic Party.
Read this piece which wonders what impact the recent drop in abortion rates will have on the ongoing debate.
Read about the recent ruling that Missouri inmates can have elective abortions.
Read this piece which wonders if Apple’s “unique” designs are really all that new, or if they’re “borrowed” from “Braun products designed by Dieter Rams” in the late 1950s. See this piece also wondering the same thing.
See pictures from my son Carson’s second birthday.
Life is full of simple pleasures. At least it ought to be. Little things that make us smile as we go through the day, fond reflections as the night closes in. One of life’s little pleasures for me is discovering new music. This is all the more true when that music comes through friends. One of the things that’s always intrigued me is the social aspect of music. The ability to share life through song.
I recently received an e-mail from someone who knew some of the friends I made while a student at Southern Seminary. That someone was Joe Garner and Joe Garner plays music. As a result of those e-mails, I have found myself listening quite a bit lately to Joe’s EP, Mourning Birds. The EP was recorded at a studio in the mountains of east Tennessee and is currently released independently.
At six songs, it leaves you fulfilled yet wanting more. Mastered by TW Walsh, formerly of Pedro the Lion, Garner’s songs exist somewhere between alt. country, folk, Americana and roots music and Pedro the Lion fans will find much to love here. Sparse but not spare, barren but not bare, most of the music centers around Garner, his voice and guitar. With flourishes of subtle piano, cello and trumpet, With hints of Ryan Adams and Whiskeytown, Iron and Wine and others, Garner travels well-worn roads while leaving his own indelible footprints along the way. Garner’s profile at Sonicbids describes Garner and his music this way:
Son to a life-long and road-weary Country ‘n’ Western picker, Garner comes by his music honest. While not too concerned with slaying the forefathers of his genre or recreating the wagon wheel, Joe Garner has been able to move in and inhabit the best sensibilities of a songwriting once known as Country Music, but upon its exit from the country now labeled ‘Roots’.
I like to describe some music as “comfortable.” Some music feels as though it’s been part of your life all along, even when you’re hearing it for the first time. There is some spark there that instantly connects and it’s as if you’ve always lived with that music. Listen and connect with Joe Garner. Here is a live video of Joe performing “Bury the Hatchet:”
To help introduce you to Joe Garner and his music, I asked him a few questions about his faith, his music and their relationship. Here’s what he had to say:
When/how did you first begin writing your own songs?
I began playing guitar when I was 18 after hearing Buddy Holly. My dad made a living playing country music in Nashville, so we had guitars all over the house, but I was into Silverchair and Pearl Jam and all that until I really heard ’50s music my senior year of high school; mainly through my dad. I fell in love with the raw sounds, especially Buddy Holly. So, I got my dad to teach me “Peggy Sue” and probably 3 years later I wrote a song about a man whom I knew from the church I attended after he passed away. I remember being really satisfied having worked through my thoughts with the guitar, and I still feel the same way.
For those who haven’t had a chance to hear your music yet, how would you describe it?
I’m not sure. I’m not sure the music so far is what I’m going for but I think it’s really trying to connect with the lives of those around me as well as my own experience in a way that eludes us (both) on a day to day basis.
What role does music play in your own life?
I think Bruce Springsteen said he could learn more from a 5 minute song than from 4 years of college or something crazy like that. I really relate to that. I love working and living at my own pace, so being able to push “pause” and “repeat” on a CD player to really saturate myself with someone’s thoughts is something I love. It doesn’t work so well with books because I start feeling really insecure and behind because it takes me so long to finish them. I still read, of course, but songs keep me in the loop.
It’s impossible to divorce the two while making music for the right reasons. I don’t want to create music that is a means to human success, but I still believe that music is, in fact, a means to an end, and not the end in itself. Wow, that’s confusing. The first time I saw Sam Beam I was taken aback at the community he created in the place when he began singing; you could hear a pin drop for a solid hour. At that show I realized the bond a song could create. And we know that Christ lives within the community of believers. So I hope that as I craft songs the mysteries of the faith float around the room that Christ may bring the listener closer to himself. But I want to do that in a way that’s good y’know?
What is your view of “Christian” music?
Well, that’s a tough question because I think it’s great to gather and sing songs as a body to God, even though I’ve never felt totally comfortable in that setting, but once I started hearing Bob Dylan songs and old slave ballads that really captured the most devastating (and realistic) of human experiences, all the pop Christian music I’d heard became really cheap and meaningless. I have a friend that says the evangelical position in culture many times is “whatever you can do we can do later” and I think this really comes to light in the Christian music industry. All that said, I still really love Rich Mullins, not necessarily because of his music but because of the way he lives his life.
Are there any artists you think are getting this mix of Christian faith and music right?
Well, I’ve learned more from agnostic writing and even related more to that than those folks who have the same belief that I do, so I appreciate when someone just is who they are. In the same way that Pete Seeger just rubs me the wrong way when he’s singing a propagandistic song, I get really put off when a Christian songwriter hides a snake under the tablecloth for 3 minutes when you already know it’s there. Just put it on the table! Now we can write a song.
What’s next?
Since this is my first album not much is happening quite yet. I’m just writing away and hoping that enough people like what I’m doing to allow me to do it more. I’m just really getting started and I’d love to chat next year to see where we’ve gotten. Oh, and tell your friends!
I was just made aware that my RSS feeds have been down since Friday. Has anyone else noticed this? To my knowledge, nothing on Friday changed that should have affected the feeds, so I’m not sure what’s going on. You can go here to see what it says.
I looked and, from what I can tell, the code appears normal in the index, so I’m I’m not sure if I’m looking in the wrong place. Any help would be greatly appreciated, I know there’s people much more savvy than I out there! Here is the error message if that helps:
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/colossia/public_html/wp-blog-header.php:21) in /home/colossia/public_html/wp-rss2.php on line 8
What does this even mean? Oh the glories of modern technology!
As many of you know, my wife and I are expecting our fourth child (see Kristi’s belly here). In light of this, I have, understandably I think, been thinking some about what the Bible says about children. Some of these appeared in a post challenging us on whether or not we believe it when the Bible says that children are a blessing (read that post here).
There is, perhaps, no more controversial concept in Christendom than church discipline. Well, that is perhaps, next to eschatology. Or maybe Calvinism. But church discipline is up there regardless. The Wall Street Journal recently featured 
It’s likely that many of our mothers used a similar proverb to try and tame our tongues: “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.” While a bit on the pragmatic side, it’s not a bad sentiment (even though, growing up, I would sometimes use my silence to speak in place of my words!). It seems to draw on several Scriptural sentiments while at the same time not taking them quite far enough. The Bible certainly has much to say about our words. For example, see 
The Knights of the New Crusade seem to be controversial to just about everyone. And that just might be the point. A garage punk band based out of San Francisco, The Knights of the New Crusade are equal opportunity offenders. The band’s 2006 release, A Challenge to the Cowards of Christendom features lyrics like: “Why do you want to go to hell?” and “when I see her around town, she’s doing things to make the devil proud.” Their message is clear: “Jesus is the only way and without Him, you’ll perish.” Needless to say, non-believers might not come running back for more.
Another week gone by and what do you have to show for it? I have some links. Would you like to see my links? They’re shiny links and they sparkle in the sunlight. Well, that really depends on if your computer monitor is facing the sun, doesn’t it? Welcome to the Weekly Town Crier, where I pass along some of what made me pause and say “hmmmmm,” for one reason or another. Remember, linking is not the same as endorsing. Enjoy:
Life is full of simple pleasures. At least it ought to be. Little things that make us smile as we go through the day, fond reflections as the night closes in. One of life’s little pleasures for me is discovering new music. This is all the more true when that music comes through friends. One of the things that’s always intrigued me is the social aspect of music. The ability to share life through song.
I was just made aware that my RSS feeds have been down since Friday. Has anyone else noticed this? To my knowledge, nothing on Friday changed that should have affected the feeds, so I’m not sure what’s going on. You can go 
